One of the horror genre's "most widely read critics" (Rue Morgue # 68), "an accomplished film journalist" (Comic Buyer's Guide #1535), and the award-winning author of Horror Films of the 1980s (2007), The Rock and Roll Film Encyclopedia (2007) and Horror Films of the 1970s (2002), John Kenneth Muir, presents his blog on film, television and nostalgia, named one of the Top 100 Film Studies Blog on the Net.

Monday, June 12, 2017

Ask JKM a Question: The Mummy and Dark Universe?

A
reader, David, writes:

“Have
you seen The Mummy (2017) yet, and if so what are your thoughts on it,
and the genesis of the “Dark” Cinematic Universe?”

That
is an excellent question, David. Thank you for asking me.

I
have not seen The Mummy at this point, but I will definitely see it
eventually, probably when it is available to stream at home.

I
should state, right up front, I am not generally a fan of Mummy movies that
concentrate more on action and thrills than on blood-curdling horror.

For
me, growing up, the Mummy was a “horror” character, and a scary one at that.
The modern action take on the character -- whether fronted by Brendan Fraser or
Tom Cruise -- does not interest me much. I didn’t like the 1999 The
Mummy’s take on the famous character at all, so this isn’t necessarily
a dig against a new film I haven’t seen yet, just a matter of personal
preference.

Regarding the “Dark” shared universe, I have to write that, initially, I don’t
care for the name of the bloody thing.

At
this point in the cycle of studio blockbuster history, the word “dark” is just
too generic and commonly-used to symbolize anything specific, or intriguing, or even sinister. We’ve
had dark knights and their rise, we’ve visited Thor’s dark world, and traveled
into darkness with Star Trek. Calling the Universal Monsters Shared Cinematic Universe a “dark” one
suggests, at least to me, that not much good thought has gone into the reasons
to revive these monsters in today’s climate.

I
know, of course, there is a monetary reason for such a revival.

I’m writing
here about the artistic reasons. I love
characters such as Dracula, the Wolf Man, the Invisible Man, the Bride of
Frankenstein, the Mummy and The Creature from the Black Lagoon, and I am not at
all averse to seeing their stories retold in updated fashion, if done so with
intelligence and atmosphere. The previews I’ve seen of The Mummy aren’t encouraging on these fronts,
but again, I don’t want to judge a book by its cover. It’s very possible I will
enjoy the movie, or find value in it, when I watch it in full.

But
I can’t say, honestly, that I have a lot of interest in an “action” version of The
Bride of Frankenstein, or Creature from the Black Lagoon, for
example.

Similarly, I would not want to watch an “action” Freddy Krueger movie,
or action Michael Myers movie. All these
characters belong to the horror genre, and they exist inside the parameters of
that genre. I believe someone could indeed make an intelligent, new version of
these creature features of old, but I don’t have confidence that “action” is
the best route to take. Creatively -- artistically -- I believe it is a mistake.

Similarly, I don't like that these films are going to be fronted by "big" stars such as Tom Cruise, or Johnny Depp.

For me, the monsters themselves are the stars of these films, and it isn't necessary to pay an "A" list actor like Cruise or Depp for the project. In fact, I feel that their presence actually distracts from the monsters, and changes the nature of the beast, literally.

In
short, these long-lived monster characters might simply exist best in smaller budgeted, more
idiosyncratic, tightly-written, scary
horror movies. They don’t have to exist
as super expensive CGI incarnations, meant to be huge blockbusters, fronted by huge stars.

If action
is to be the primary direction of the franchise, I just can’t see how these timeless
creatures will benefit much from a 21st century re-paint. The new monsters will just be effects. Yet if you go back
and watch the Universal Monster films of the 1930’s and 1940’s, you can detect
that the stories and antagonists are grounded in character and humanity, not effects work.

I
should be incredibly excited about a cinematic revival of the Universal Monsters, and
perhaps I will be, after watching The Mummy.

But I feel, at this point, that a
new shared cinematic universe needs to be more than expensive action-fantasy,
fronted by box office stars. If the
monsters must be brought back, the filmmakers should do everything possible to meaningfully update them, making them relevant
to the fears of today.

And most of all, they must make them scary again. That the franchise opens with action -- and with Tom Cruise -- is, to me, a warning sign that these monsters aren't really well-understood or appreciated by the filmmakers involved.

About John

award-winning author of 27 books including Horror Films FAQ (2013), Horror Films of the 1990s (2011), Horror Films of the 1980s (2007), TV Year (2007), The Rock and Roll Film Encyclopedia (2007), Mercy in Her Eyes: The Films of Mira Nair (2006),, Best in Show: The Films of Christopher Guest and Company (2004), The Unseen Force: The Films of Sam Raimi (2004), An Askew View: The Films of Kevin Smith (2002), The Encyclopedia of Superheroes on Film & Television (2004), Exploring Space:1999 (1997), An Analytical Guide to TV's Battlestar Galactica (1998), Terror Television (2001), Space:1999 - The Forsaken (2003) and Horror Films of the 1970s (2002).

Follow by Email

What the Critics Say...

"...some of the best writing about the genre has been done by John Kenneth Muir. I am particularly grateful to him for the time and attention he's paid to things others have overlooked, under-appreciated and often written off. His is a fan's perspective first, but with a critic's eye to theme and underscore, to influence and pastiche..." - Chris Carter, creator of The X-Files, in the foreword to Horror Films FAQ (October 2013).

"Hands down, John Kenneth Muir is one of the finest critics and writers working today. His deep analysis of contemporary American culture is always illuminating and insightful. John's film writing and criticism is outstanding and a great place to start for any budding writer, but one should also examine his work on comic books, TV, and music. His weighty catalog of books and essays combined with his significant blog production places him at the top of pop culture writers. Johns work is essential in understanding the centrality of culture in modern society." - Professor Bob Batchelor, cultural historian and Executive Director of the James Pedas Communication Center at Thiel College (2014).

"...an independent film scholar, [Muir] explains film studies concepts in a language that is reader-friendly and engaging..." (The Hindu, 2007)"...Muir's genius lies in his giving context to the films..." (Choice, 2007)